Christian Theocracy

[Guest Timothy L]

God's supreme authority. Psa 2 Mat 28:18 Rev. 19:6, 1Ti 6:15, Rev 17:14, Rev 19:16 Psa 22:28, 1Ch 29:11, Jer10:7

Civil magistracy requirements

Fear God, uphold righteousness, uphold the Law of God, not to make their own unrighteous statutes, neither are the people to obey them. Exodus 18:21, Deu 17:14-19, 2 Samuel 23:2-3, Job 34:17, Psalm 94:20, 2Ki 17:8 2Ki 17:21,Isa 10:1, Isa 9:16 Hos 5:10; Mic 6:16 Hab 1:2-4 Romans 13:3,4, Pro 28:4-5, Pro 16:12-13, Pro 25:5, Pro 17:15, Pro 24:24

Edited December 16, 2007 by Timothy L

[Wishbone]

A theocracy is the way the Kingdom is anyway. It's the only truly appropriate system of government. It's the only one that gives the Lord his Place.

[Massorite]

A theocracy is the way the Kingdom is anyway. It's the only truly appropriate system of government. It's the only one that gives the Lord his Place.

One in which countless individuals are persecuted and subject to intolerance for not worshiping the "right" God. How would you like living in a Muslim theocracy or any other theocracy established in the name of a God you don't worship? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Democracy, freedom of religion (freedom from religion), freedom of speech, these are all what allow any of us to be here today, discussing such issues ... making rational decisions for the best of everyone, they certainly wouldn't have come about in a true theocratic state.

That's right if we didn't have the freedoms we have today we wouldn't be murdering 1,000,000 babies a year, we wouldn't have criminals sueing the people they committed a crime against because they defended them selves, we wouldn't have illegal immigrants breaking the law and getting away with it, we wouldn't have border patrol officers going to jail for shooting a drug smuggler or gay rights or legal pornography, we wouldn't be saturated by drug and alcohol abuse. Need I say more?

[Guest Timothy L]

The following is from Greg Price.

"The ordinance of God" (Rom. 13:2) is not equivalent to every civil authority that God in His providence places upon a throne. That which God directs in history by His providence is not necessarily that which He orders by His moral precepts (and it is by His moral precepts that civil magistracy is instituted). Therefore, it must be maintained that "the ordinance of God" is determined by the moral and revealed will of God (rather than by His providential will). For if there is no distinction established between God's moral will and God's providential will in determining who is "the ordinance of God" the following errors will certainly result:

a. If there is no distinction to be made between the preceptive will of God and the providential will of God, then providence is equally in all respects the rule of duty, as much as is the precept. Then no matter how evil a civil magistrate becomes he must be acknowledged to be "the ordinance of God" and "the minister of God to thee for good."

b. If there is no distinction to be made between the preceptive will of God and the providential will of God, then providence must express God's approbation and institution in civil government as much as His preceptive will. One must conclude then that anything God states in His moral law concerning civil government is merely a suggestion (rather than a moral commandment) from God which civil magistrates may take or leave at their own discretion.

c. If there is no difference between the providential will of God and the moral will of God, then why would only murderers and thieves who ascend to the civil throne be acknowledged as "the ministers of God to thee for good", and not the murderer or the thief who usurps the place of a father as head in his family, or who slaughters the elders of a church and claims authority to rule in the church? If one would not recognize the tyrant who usurps the leadership in a family or a church as "the ordinance of God", why should he recognize the tyrant who usurps the leadership in a nation?

d. If, in fact, we are to acknowledge as "the ordinance of God" whoever may sit upon a throne (and merely because he has gained the scepter to the throne in God's providence), then we must acknowledge as "the minister of God to thee for good" the beast of Revelation (i.e. the tyrannical civil power of anti-Christ Rome) who receives his power from Satan (Rev. 13:2,4), who is worshipped by all those who dwell on the earth (Rev. 13:4), who blasphemes God in his official capacity (Rev. 13:6), and who murders and persecutes God's people. Furthermore, we must in all consistency acknowledge Satan as "the minister of God to thee for good", for he is the one who gives the beast his power and who is designated "the prince of this world" (Jn. 12:31; Jn. 14:30)

e. Such a fallacious view of civil magistracy would justify the very sin of resistance against a lawful civil government which Paul forbids ("Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God" Rom. 13:2). For whoever could successfully gain the scepter to the throne by God's providential will (even if it was to remove the scepter from the hands of a righteous ruler) would become "the ordinance of God" to whom the people must submit for conscience sake and honor as "the minister of God to thee for good."

f. Or this erroneous view of civil magistracy could just as well forbid and renounce all resistance (under any condition) against the civil magistrate that is in power (regardless of his wicked tyranny), and in so doing denounce all revolutions against tyranny as wicked (e.g. the revolutions of righteous judges and kings against tyranny found in the pages of Scripture; or the revolutions against tyranny in history as in the case of the Dutch under William of Orange against the Spanish, or the resistance of Scotland against the tyranny of Charles I, or the U.S. war for independence against the tyranny of the king of England; or even the resistance of a Christian against Satan who gives to the beast his civil power to rule).

g. This unbiblical view of civil magistracy is contrary to the Word of God wherein the Spirit of God testifies that the actual possession of the throne, under the providential power of God, may be in the hands of one ruler, while the moral power and "ordinance of God" is in the hands of another.

(1) Though Absalom had won the hearts of the people of Israel and had removed David from the throne (2 Sam. 15-18), did he by his mere possession of the throne become "the ordinance of God?" If not, then mere possession of civil power does not institute nor constitute one as "the minister of God to thee for good." Furthermore, was David divested of his lawful authority to rule upon the throne of Israel because he was unseated by his son?

(2) Though wicked Athaliah had reached the throne of Judah (in God's providence) by murdering all her royal grandsons (except Joash who was hidden from her), she was not acknowledged to be "the ordinance of God." Rather she was an usurper of the throne, and was rightfully slain as a tyrant when Joash ("the ordinance of God") ascended to the throne (2 Chron. 22:10-23:15).

(3) Though Jehoram was by God's providence ruler of the northern kingdom of Israel, Elisha the prophet would not give to him the conscientious subjection or honor which was due "the ordinance of God" ("And Elisha said, As the LORD of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee" 2 Kgs. 3:14).

(4) Godmakes it abundantly clear in His word that He does not recognize as His "ordinance" or as His "minister" every magistrate that sits upon a throne, for in rebuking the northern kingdom of Israel for their wickedness, He declares: "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not" (Hos. 8:4). If these kings were not established according to God's moral law, then they were not given authority to rule by God and cannot be "the minister of God to thee for good."

(5) Therefore, the "higher powers" (Rom. 13:1) to which Christians are to be subject for conscience sake, the "powers" that are ordained of God, the "powers" that are "the minister of God to thee for good", and the "powers" that are to be honored, are those who hold a moral power (according to God's moral law in nature and in Scripture) to the throne, not those who merely hold a military power or popular power to the throne (according to God's sovereign providence) .

8. Tyrants who claim regal authority to rule over a kingdom cannot receive the conscientious subjection of Christians.

a. Christians can no more submit for conscience sake to a tyrant who sits upon the throne (by God's providence) than they can submit for conscience sake to the beast (Rev. 13:1-8) or to Satan who both rule by God's providential will.

b. In fact, tyrants ought to be actively resisted for conscience sake by the following means: not granting to them conscientious subjection, not acknowledging them to be the ordinance of God, not honoring them as the minister of God to thee for good, disobeying their unlawful commands, testifying against their wicked rule, praying for the demise of their throne which is established upon wickedness, fleeing their wrath when necessary, and as a last resort revolting against their tyrannical rule when force is necessary for self-defence.

c. This is not sedition, treason, nor revolutionary anarchy, unless one is also willing to condemn the approved testimony of saints in biblical history and in extra-biblical history of these crimes (yea even willing to condemn God Himself for approving such civil resistance), for such a view of lawful resistance against tyrants is neither foreign to Scripture nor to our reformed forefathers.

d. Consider the following incidents of lawful resistance against tyrants in Scripture (this list could easily be multiplied so as to include many more examples, but this should suffice to demonstrate the biblical warrant of lawful resistance against tyrants).

(1) Abraham resisted the wicked alliance of kings who had conquered Sodom and Gomorrah, and did not acknowledge them to be "the minister of God" merely because they had gained a military power to rule (in God's providence), but rather Abraham defeated them and rescued Lot from their clutches (Gen. 14:13-16).

(2) Moses did not recognize Pharaoh as "the ordinance of God", but resisted his tyranny and delivered Israel from servitude in Egypt (Ex. 7-14).

(3) Judges such as Othniel (Judg. 3:8-11), Ehud (Judg. 3:12-30), Shamgar (Judg. 3:31), Deborah and Barak (Judg. 4), Gideon (Judg. 6-8), Jephthah (Judg.11-12), and Samson (Judg. 13-16) resisted tyrants who ruled over Israel rather than granting to them subjection for conscience sake.

(4) David did not subject himself for conscience sake to Absalom as a "higher power" to whom honor was due as "the ordinance of God", but resisted him even though Absalom had won the hearts of all the people of Israel and had gained military control of Israel (2 Sam. 16:15; 2 Sam. 18:6-8).

(5) Elijah did not honor Ahab as "the minister of God" for good, but resisted him by fleeing from him and his wicked queen (1 Kgs. 17:3; 1 Kgs. 19:3), and by taking the sword from the hands of Ahab so that he and the people slew the prophets of Baal (1 Kgs. 18:40).

(6) Elijah did not acknowledge the lawful authority of king Ahaziah to rule over Israel, for he resisted the king by not obeying the king's order to compear before him and even brought God's fiery judgment upon the representatives of Ahaziah's authority (2 Kgs. 1:9-13).

(7) Jehoiada did not subject himself for conscience sake to the tyrant Athaliah, but put her to death even though she accused all those who resisted her of treason (2 Chron. 23:12-15).

(8) God Himself resisted the idolatrous kings of Israel by not acknowledging them to be ministers whom He appointed (Hos. 8:4).

(9) Jesus instructed His disciples that when they were delivered up to gentile kings for Christ's sake, rather than acknowledging them to be "the ordinance of God", they were to testify against them (Mt. 10:18), and to flee their tyranny rather than submit to them for conscience sake (Mt. 10:23).

(10) God gives wings to the church to flee from the persecution which Satan brings against her by means of tyrannical civil and ecclesiastical government rather than commanding the church to render conscientious subjection to such tyranny (Rev. 12:14).

(11) "The prince of this world" (Jn. 14:30) is to be resisted by Christians (Jms. 4:7). If Satan (who grants power to wicked tyrants to rule) is to be resisted, should not tyrants who rule by Satan's wicked power also be resisted? If we cannot be subject for conscience sake to Satan, how can we be subject for conscience sake to those who rule by his power ?

[amor]

I partly agree and partly disagree.

I would like to see my country, England, become solely a Christian nation. Now, I don't believe you can force Christian belief on anyone....it is a work of the Holy Spirit.

But I would like to see ALL mosques, hindu temples, TM centres and the like BANNED and demolished, as they were in ancient Israel.......that way, people wouldn't be so tempted to go into these religions.

It was when Israel compromised and allowed pagan worship in their land, that they went downhill.

Having only the Christian gospel taught is the best way to give them the best possible chance, in my opinion.

Synagogues too? If not, Why not? You say you can't force Christianity on anyone, but you are willing to force them to stop worshiping. What happens if they resisted, would you force them out, pull the buildings down on top of them? remember the Taliban destruction of those two carved Buddhahs would doing something similar at Stonehenge meet your approval? And what would happen to Christians who you think are in error, what would you do to their (our)churches, chapels and meeting houses. I'm a Quaker (The Religious Society of Friends), what would you do to me and other Friends destroy our meeting houses break up our meetings, jail us? I say this because your approach is in total conflict with ours, and I'm sure most of us would, peacefully but fervently resist and challenge your approach. This is exactly what happened to Quakers 300 years ago, because we refused to comply with the then state backed religious authorities both under the Puritan "Commonwealth" and later under the Anglican "Restoration" regime, the last time the state tried to force belief upon the people. In the then Puritan colony of Massachusetts the authorities executed us because of our insistence on sharing our faith.

[LadyRaven]

No one is murdering babies. Nice use of the word, but that is simply spin doctoring.

no, just killing them at a rate of around a million a year

No, let's not candy coat the situation to make things sound nice, it's not nice.

Killing of any human being outside of a just war, or the death penalty (if you believe in it) is murder.

In this case, the baby has committed no crime for which he needs punished, he is not a combatant in a war, he is an innocent who has no say and no power in the situation whatsoever. Killing him is most definitely murder, even more so than shooting someone over drugs or bumping off your spouse's lover would be. It's no different than just putting a bullet to the head of a neighbour because his existence is inconveniencing you somehow.

[MorningGlory]

No one is murdering babies. Nice use of the word, but that is simply spin doctoring.

no, just killing them at a rate of around a million a year

No, let's not candy coat the situation to make things sound nice, it's not nice.

Killing of any human being outside of a just war, or the death penalty (if you believe in it) is murder.

In this case, the baby has committed no crime for which he needs punished, he is not a combatant in a war, he is an innocent who has no say and no power in the situation whatsoever. Killing him is most definitely murder, even more so than shooting someone over drugs or bumping off your spouse's lover would be. It's no different than just putting a bullet to the head of a neighbour because his existence is inconveniencing you somehow.

I agree, L.R.; the above is a powerful antidote to the antiseptic portrayal of abortion as a 'choice'. It is actually the violent killing of a very small child. I believe if the proponents of this practice were to witness the actual procedure.....they just might change their mind. Blood and mangled babies' bodies doesn't equal 'choice' and doctors who perform these killings, in addition to violating their Hippocratic oath to do no harm, are guilty of murder, as are the parents. They may escape prosecution under the law but they will have to account for their crimes on that last day.

[Guest HIS girl]

Is the fertilized egg a "baby"?

Is an uncooked cake - a cake?

ALL the ingredients are there. It ain't playdough......

A fertilised egg has ALL the DNA requirements for human life.

[Guest HIS girl]

Is the fertilized egg a "baby"?

Is an uncooked cake - a cake?

ALL the ingredients are there. It ain't playdough......

A fertilised egg has ALL the DNA requirements for human life.

Yep, correct. But in this thread the discussion is about "baby killing". If you believe that a fertilized human egg is a "baby" and that an embryo when it is first implanted in the uterus is a "baby", do you have funerals for miscarrages?

Well that's a personal thing- we imagine funerals with caskets etc, but in this case there would definitely be a mourning period even if it was a miscarriage.

With Christianity, God says that He KNEW us before we were born and in Psalms it says He(God) created our inmost being, He knit us in our mothers womb...His eyes saw our unformed body.

We had WORTH before birth.

Is the child IN the womb worth LESS than the child OUTSIDE the womb?

Who has the right to judge that?

ONLY God has that right and from what I read in HIS Word, our Worth starts before conception.....

[Guest shiloh357]

Is the fertilized egg a "baby"?

Is an uncooked cake - a cake?

ALL the ingredients are there. It ain't playdough......

A fertilised egg has ALL the DNA requirements for human life.

Yep, correct. But in this thread the discussion is about "baby killing". If you believe that a fertilized human egg is a "baby" and that an embryo when it is first implanted in the uterus is a "baby", do you have funerals for miscarrages?

I do not see how a fertilized egg is a human being. I understand it has all the requisite DNA, but for someone to call it a human being is not rational. I do not know at what point a fertilized egg becomes a human being, but at the single cell stage or early on it is simply not one.

Using the term "baby" is inappropriate. It serves the purpose of the Sarah Palin right to life groupies and helps energize the right wing base of the Republican party but does little to add to the discussion.

Yeah, the first step in justifying abortion is to dehumanize the victim, namely the baby. Just like the Nazi's justified the killing of Jews by dehumanizing them and claiming they were a subhuman species.

the problem is that people are not aborting "eggs." Often, the bodies of aborted babies are complete with arms, legs and even had a detectable heart beat.

Liberals prefer terms like embryo, and fetus because it dehumanizes the baby. It's fetus until its born. It's called selective morality. Like the nazis, people like you want to define who is and is not human and who does and does not have the right to live based on what is convenient for the living.